Sure, the main thing is the is a 9db shelf boost of the low end, the frequency, I don't remember the frequency but roughly 500hz. This is a parametric eq that I used, the one you showed me is a graphic eq, you can create a similar effect with graphic, but of course some equalizers sound better than others.

OK,... I met a guy that was recording with an elaborate canopy rig a couple of weekends ago. He was intrigued with my binaural recording, and took those tracks home for a listen, along with his recording.

What should have been a pre-script to this post,... I'm totally clueless about EQ, with exception to using HPF in post-edit processing, on some ridiculously bass heavy reggae recordings.I was OK with the bass in the binaural recording, but, I'm 35 years trained to listen to live recordings and listen through the bumps and bruises.This other guy,... studio guy who came out into the wild. He has a massive bag of processing tricks that I'm clueless about.

He sent me back a track from my binaural, edited with what he said in the above quote (see above)I asked what it was that he did, and, he responded, and to me it read like gibberish.Can anyone explain in small words, spelled slowly, what this means?And what might I do with a graphic equalizer that might mimic what he is suggesting?

I sent this guy a screenshot of the Graphic EQ that I have available Or at least know about). It is from my Sound Studio Felt-tip Software editing program. It is reminiscent of the classic EQ of the 70's/80's, that people made smiling or frowning faces with.This parametric EQ thing is totally foreign to me.Help, please and thanks.

Mike,He lifted everything above 655Hz by a "shelf" of about 8.5 dB (I'm assuming the shelf is a gradual algorithmic level lift (8.5dB) at all frequencies above the starting frequency-look at the curve to the left of the knobs in your picture)Then he cut three frequencies; 3.98Khz and 2 Khz by 10dB also gradually cutting everything above 7.55Khz by 2.5 dB (the HI-shelf-gradual algorithmic level cut (2.5dB) at all frequencies below the starting frequency)

Does that center dial designation of 25.6 mean anything to you? Anyone?

Are the frequencies represented in those deep dips that steeply rolled off in that region?wrapping my head around this,...I hated the old EQ's of yore. I could never get things to sound as nice as just plain old flat.Qualifying this: His EQ'd sample did sound nice and plush. So, it sparked my interest.

Mike,He lifted everything above 655Hz by a "shelf" of about 8.5 dB (I'm assuming the shelf is a gradual algorithmic level lift (8.5dB) at all frequencies above the starting frequency-look at the curve to the left of the knobs in your picture)Then he cut three frequencies; 3.98Khz and 2 Khz by 10dB also gradually cutting everything above 7.55Khz by 2.5 dB (the HI-shelf-gradual algorithmic level cut (2.5dB) at all frequencies below the starting frequency)

I think you've got those backwards. Everything below 655 Hz is being lifted by the 8.5 dB and everything above 7.55 kHz is being cut by 2.5 dB.

This is something I just found, might she'd a lil light on parametric eq'sParametric EqualizersParametric equalizers are more complex than graphic equalizers, since you can make additional adjustments beyond volume.

A parametric equalizer lets you control three aspects: levels (boosting or cutting decibels), the center/primary frequency, and bandwidth/range (also known as Q or quotient of change) of each frequency. As such, parametric equalizers offer more of a surgical precision when it comes to affecting overall sound.

Like the graphic equalizer, each frequency can have an increase/decrease to decibels/volume. But while graphic equalizers have fixed frequencies, parametric equalizers can choose a center/primary frequency. For example, if a graphic equalizer has a fixed control at 20 Hz, a parametric equalizer can be adjusted to control frequencies at 10 Hz, 15 Hz, 20 Hz, 25 Hz, 30 Hz, and so forth.The selection of adjustable frequencies (e.g. by ones, fives, or tens) vary by make and model.

A parametric equalizer can also control bandwidth/range – the sloping that affects neighboring frequencies – of each individual frequency. For example, if the center frequency is 30 Hz, a wide bandwidth would also affect frequencies as low as 15 Hz and as high as 45 Hz. A narrow bandwidth might only affect frequencies as low as 25 Hz and as high as 35 Hz. While there is still a sloping effect, parametric equalizers are better able to zero in on and fine tune the shape of specific frequencies without disturbing others too much. This detailed control of tone and sound permits finer adjustments in order to suit particular/personal tastes and/or goals (such as for mixing or recording).I believe under the knobs those are settings for your bandwidth control. Peak dip means a steep attenuation hence peak and the others are controlling bandwidth more gradual.

Mike,He lifted everything above 655Hz by a "shelf" of about 8.5 dB (I'm assuming the shelf is a gradual algorithmic level lift (8.5dB) at all frequencies above the starting frequency-look at the curve to the left of the knobs in your picture)Then he cut three frequencies; 3.98Khz and 2 Khz by 10dB also gradually cutting everything above 7.55Khz by 2.5 dB (the HI-shelf-gradual algorithmic level cut (2.5dB) at all frequencies below the starting frequency)

I think you've got those backwards. Everything below 655 Hz is being lifted by the 8.5 dB and everything above 7.55 kHz is being cut by 2.5 dB.

Sorry, this is correct. Dealing with bad reaction to anti biotics and should have not replied. Just woke up and saw all of this, sorry MIke. I had the concept right but not the direction

And what might I do with a graphic equalizer that might mimic what he is suggesting?

It's easy enough to do the 8.5 dB low end boost and 2.5 dB high end cut with a normal graphic equalizer. You just adjust all the low freq ones to +8.5 and the high freq ones to -2.5 dB and do a gradual transition between the two between ~700 Hz and ~7 kHz. But there is no way to really do those sharp notches with a graphic EQ. You could try with whatever fixed EQ frequency is closest, but it's going to take out a lot more than what you are intending.

If you want to better understand/familiarize yourself with EQ i would play around with boosting and cutting across a variety of frequencies and just listening to recordings you’re familiar with on whatever stereo/system you listen to most often. Once you understand which frequencies correspond with problem areas you’re hearing in recordings, or certain elements you want to enhance a bit in the mix, working with a variety of different post processing EQs becomes pretty straightforward. For the PA’d omni recorings i’ve done of live rock shows, i’ve found that bass reduction has been probably the most eq’d element of the recording, sometimes boosting highs with a shelf or bell, and targeting bass problem areas (the “boominess” is generally somewhere between 120hz and 280hz or so) with a narrow bell filter. The eq adjustments that were done to your recording were pretty drastic and i would think really altered the sound (big increase in the lower mids and reduction in the highs) but obviously i haven’t heard the original source!

Learning a lot already! thanks guys.I actually learned enough to be brave enough to go into a menu heading called Sound Studio>Filter>Audio Units, where I found a Low Shelf, and, High Shelf filters; Apple: AUHighSHelfFilter & AULowShelfFilter, Parametric EQ, amongst other previously unknowns.So, I toyed around for the last hour or so with the low shelf filter deal,.. I can say that this interests me.

My old Senn MKE2002 omnis have a bass rolloff characteristic that this might be useful for. It used to be a good thing in the heavy amplified bass days, but, is more apparent now in the acoustic music realm.

Mike,He lifted everything above 655Hz by a "shelf" of about 8.5 dB (I'm assuming the shelf is a gradual algorithmic level lift (8.5dB) at all frequencies above the starting frequency-look at the curve to the left of the knobs in your picture)Then he cut three frequencies; 3.98Khz and 2 Khz by 10dB also gradually cutting everything above 7.55Khz by 2.5 dB (the HI-shelf-gradual algorithmic level cut (2.5dB) at all frequencies below the starting frequency)

I think you've got those backwards. Everything below 655 Hz is being lifted by the 8.5 dB and everything above 7.55 kHz is being cut by 2.5 dB.

Sorry, this is correct. Dealing with bad reaction to anti biotics and should have not replied. Just woke up and saw all of this, sorry MIke. I had the concept right but not the direction

no worries. good health to you my friend.

Hey,... I got to go to downtown Hep-A town, San Diego, to pay my property taxes today. We even saw the sidewalk bleaching crew hard at work.

Parametric Eq's are the best IMO. Obviously the world has uses for graphic and such, but when I did FOH and live PA sound, the discovery of parametric EQ's (Ashley, then Meyer Sound) was one of the best tools I ever found. This was in the big bad analog era (1980's) so now with the digital and software age these tools have become miniaturized and the software ones are more affordable compared to their hardware brothers ans sisters.

this Massenburg one looks nice, anyone know of others and/or relative costs of them? (i.e. I am interested in the Ozone software for my processing and am still not committed to any platform yet)

In general EQ can be divided into to general categories- general tone shaping on one hand, and reducing the impact of specific problems on the other. They are quite different from each other in the way one approaches them and what they sound like (or intentionally don't sound like).

The screen shot image of the curve your recording acquaintance sent you indicates he used both approaches- the broad rise in the low frequency area is tonal shaping produced via a broad shelf-filter which effects everything below about 600Hz or so. Think of shelf filters as being analogous to traditional bass and treble tone controls. Their impact is easily heard, which is the entire point of using them- to shape the general tonal balance of the recording.

In contrast, the two narrow notches are 'forensic' type corrections which should not be heard. They are fine-tuned filters specifically addressing some resonance or noise problem (perhaps minor). Because they are narrow notches only affecting a very narrow frequency range, their tonal impact will be minimal, yet to minimize the problem without overly affecting the surrounding frequency range they need to be set much more carefully. (Geek note- see how the second notched frequency is almost exactly twice that of the first? That's indicative of a harmonic series, which is common to hums and resonances - think of a 60Hz power hum also manifesting at the next harmonic interval of 120Hz. This harmonic series is the same aspect that produces the timbre qualities of the sound of an instrument, and is why a 440Hz middle 'C' played on different instruments sounds different and rich on each one, and contains rich harmonic content above 440Hz, rather than sounding like a straight 440Hz sine wave)

General tone shaping is far easier to wrap your head around and where I suggest you focus your initial exploration into EQ. You'll get the most productive return from that. Forget the forensic narrow notch stuff unless you really have a specific annoying problem you want to try to fix. Tone shaping is generally far more fun and rewarding, making "mediocre" or "good" recordings better, rather than trying to hide problems without creating more problems.

Here's one unfortunate complication- tone shaping requires more truthful monitoring than forensic EQ correction does. That's because tone shaping is meant to be heard and will be by everyone who listens. Forensic correction is not intended to be heard and is ideally only heard by the editor setting it up, it is ideally only heard by the end user via its absence.

In general EQ can be divided into to general categories- general tone shaping on one hand, and reducing the impact of specific problems on the other. They are quite different from each other in the way one approaches them and what they sound like (or intentionally don't sound like).

The screen shot image of the curve your recording acquaintance sent you indicates he used both approaches- the broad rise in the low frequency area is tonal shaping produced via a broad shelf-filter which effects everything below about 600Hz or so. Think of shelf filters as being analogous to traditional bass and treble tone controls. Their impact is easily heard, which is the entire point of using them- to shape the general tonal balance of the recording.

In contrast, the two narrow notches are 'forensic' type corrections which should not be heard. They are fine-tuned filters specifically addressing some resonance or noise problem (perhaps minor). Because they are narrow notches only affecting a very narrow frequency range, their tonal impact will be minimal, yet to minimize the problem without overly affecting the surrounding frequency range they need to be set much more carefully. (Geek note- see how the second notched frequency is almost exactly twice that of the first? That's indicative of a harmonic series, which is common to hums and resonances - think of a 60Hz power hum also manifesting at the next harmonic interval of 120Hz. This harmonic series is the same aspect that produces the timbre qualities of the sound of an instrument, and is why a 440Hz middle 'C' played on different instruments sounds different and rich on each one, rather than like the same 440Hz sine wave from all of them)

General tone shaping is far easier to wrap your head around and where I suggest you focus your initial exploration into EQ. You'll get the most productive return from that. Forget the forensic narrow notch stuff unless you really have a specific annoying problem you want to try to fix. Tone shaping is generally far more fun and rewarding, making "mediocre" or "good" recordings better, rather than trying to hide problems without creating more problems.

Here's one unfortunate complication- tone shaping requires more truthful monitoring than forensic EQ correction does. That's because tone shaping is meant to be heard and will be by everyone who listens. Forensic correction is not intended to be heard and is ideally only heard by the editor setting it up, it is ideally only heard by the end user via its absence.